Natural selection

[nmrmak]

Ok, I have been thinking about this all day...
Nature has it's own ways of selection. But it seems that we fucked it up with medicine and stuff like that which make life easier and more comfortable. I mean, it's not the case any more that only the fittest survive and get to reproduce with the fittest of the other sex. In my opinion, by helping people, we actually kill our own race...

What are your views on this?

[Kentish]

It's also very easy to survive these days, so natural selection is not as important (perhaps).

[MrG]

we are all stuffed if you read what a mr. soft has been posting in the sex thread about his inbreeding relationship with his sister

[Kentish]

we are all stuffed if you read what a mr. soft has been posting in the sex thread about his inbreeding relationship with his sister
Although he doesn't actually want to breed with her, and if he's shagging his sister, at least he's not spreading his genes around the rest of the population. :thumb:

[twisted_trinity]

in a way you are right. but tbh, the world seems to have cycles of getting a huge population and then going into self destruct because of the abuse from that huge population. thus many people die. so in a way the earth still does it for us.

[Kentish]

in a way you are right. but tbh, the world seems to have cycles of getting a huge population and then going into self destruct because of the abuse from that huge population. thus many people die. so in a way the earth still does it for us.
There are more people alive today than have ever been alive ever.

What are you referring to? :confused:

[Namaste]

Ok, I have been thinking about this all day...
Nature has it's own ways of selection. But it seems that we fucked it up with medicine and stuff like that which make life easier and more comfortable. I mean, it's not the case any more that only the fittest survive and get to reproduce with the fittest of the other sex. In my opinion, by helping people, we actually kill our own race...

What are your views on this?
I'd imagine it'd take thousands of years for our gene pool to weaken...

Actually my concerns are MMRAs.

[AllAmericanRageJunky]

I wouldn't be so worried about the weakening of the human gene pool, as i would be about the fact that the over use of medication is helping to breed super diseases :D

[nmrmak]

But is there a way to stop the human race from degenerating?

A radical solution would be to take the most intelligent people without genetic diseases, etc. and kill the rest. I mean, I would never do that, but it is a very hypotethical solution. Is there a more humane way? Is there a *better* way?

[Man Of Kent]

Who says we are degenerating?

[groovechampion]

Yeah its an established principle, because so many of us are surviving the "only the fittest survive" principle doesn't apply anymore. So no particular type of genes are favoured.

But we are on the verge of being able to manipulate our genes anyway so it won't matter, in 100 years time I'm sure there'll be the technology to eliminate unwanted genes anyway!

[groovechampion]

A radical solution would be to take the most intelligent people without genetic diseases, etc. and kill the rest. I mean, I would never do that, but it is a very hypotethical solution. Is there a more humane way? Is there a *better* way?

That's called eugenics, the nazis tried it, makes sense in theory but in human terms it won't be very popular!

Gene therapy and manipulation are both very real prospects and are a lot more palatable than the enforced Darwinism favoured by the Nazis!

[Maladjusted]

Several studies/observations show that so called faulty genes are also linked to beneficial traits. like the amazing degree of autism in children born in silicon valley over in america. maybe you ahve to be a bit odd sometimes to be brilliant at something.

Moonrat - MMRAs? what the hell are they? do you mean bugs such as MRSA?

AllAmericanRageJunky - a lot fot he problem about building up ressitance is because of stupid people not finishing their courses of antibiotics and not eradicating an infection and thus they get all surprised when they start feeling ill again.
also the stupidity of some of the general public demanding antibiotics for the least sniffle when a lot of the time it's a virus and all they can do is rest and let the body fight it off, unless they seriously expect doctors to prosribe expensive, and rare antivirons for the common cold.

[twisted_trinity]

There are more people alive today than have ever been alive ever.

What are you referring to? :confused:
Ice ages, the self destruction we have created i.e. global warming, etc...

[morrocan roll]

man is a social animal and has qualities such as love kindness sacrifice ...
with these qualities we got this far ...nothing whatsover to do with survival of the fiuttest.

[Kentish]

Ice ages, the self destruction we have created i.e. global warming, etc...
Ice ages are natural phenomena afaik. And for how long has "global warming" been an issue; and how many people have died as a consequence?

[nmrmak]

I think that the human race will degrade over time, because of many factors. Lack of natural selection and all the human caused bad stuff, such as radiation and pollution being one of these. What happened in Chernobyl definitely had an effect on the human gene pool. These people were probably left sterile, but there is a small percentage that will reproduce.

I'm talking about it in general, it just seems to me that natural selection is no more. The only satisfying answer would be that people will be able to alter genes in 100 years' time, so we will be able to improve our genes and suit them to our needs. I probably won't live long enough to see it, but it a nice vision.

[Teh_Gerbil]

Natural Selection is now outdated, we've evolved past it.

Global Warming is an Issue, don't trust anyone who says it isn't.

I went to Walton on the Naze recently after many years of not going there.
Where the Hell did it go???

People few havet died, they just moved from their land that is inhospitable/not there anymore. You don't stay somewhere when you will die, will you. Honestly...

Although, the soonest they reakon people will die is 50 years, when really cold winters hit, as we loose power and water, etc. Could be 100 years though.

[Indrid Cold]

but it a nice vision.
:no: What's nice about something so unnatural? :no:

[nmrmak]

:no: What's nice about something so unnatural? :no:
Can't really say it's nice, but it brings some hope. It might lead to destruction, too... I can't say if it's good or bad. :chin:

[morrocan roll]

http://img173.exs.cx/img173/6893/misschernobyl20048qh.jpg Natural Selection is now outdated, we've evolved past it.

Global Warming is an Issue, don't trust anyone who says it isn't.

I went to Walton on the Naze recently after many years of not going there.
Where the Hell did it go???

People few havet died, they just moved from their land that is inhospitable/not there anymore. You don't stay somewhere when you will die, will you. Honestly...

Although, the soonest they reakon people will die is 50 years, when really cold winters hit, as we loose power and water, etc. Could be 100 years though.


miss chernobyl ...

[Namaste]

Moonrat - MMRAs? what the hell are they? do you mean bugs such as MRSA?

Yeah that's what I meant, was half asleep when I typed it though.

Superbugs.

[Asian-American]

Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html

Regards.

[Blagsta]

pseudo-scientific nonsense.

[Corvidae]

I don't think you can say we've evolved past natural selection. The whole point of natural selection is adaptation to the environment. A cataclysmic change to the world may then cause further need for adaptation, and such adaptation may not result in humans becoming 'better' by today’s standards, merely better able to reproduce under different conditions. I'm not really sure, but I don't think that there's a need to have constant selection pressure to maintain the viability of a species. I mean, even if we base it purely on probability that humans with defects can reproduce as well as those who have none, those with defects won't overtake those with none. I suppose there maybe the risk of a build up of mutations, which will now continue to be passed on rather than eliminated by failure to reproduce. Hmmm...

[morrocan roll]

the fittest and fastest and strongest ...have always been sent off to fight wars for the weakest.
the strongest fittest and fastest ...have been made to dig the holes and hump the sacks ...for and by the weakest ...so don't give me that survival of the fittest bullshit!

[Corvidae]

Survival of the fittest refers to organisms having a particular trait that enables said organism to reproduce at a faster rate than those without that mutation/trait. It doesn't literally refer to being 'fast' or 'strong', just being better adapted to a particular environment.

[klintock]

Ideas are also subject to evolutionary trends. - Meme theory etc.

There can be no unnatural occurences, unless you somehow think that we are apart and not a part of nature. If you do, you are crazier than I am.

[ginner]

I agree that supporting the weak is in opposition to the concept of natural selection. But it's madness to suggest we've evolved beyond it. We might have slowed it a bit by reducing selection pressures and shunning those who are different. How many mates would a potentially superior three armed man get? I've had this argument a number of times from each side.

The argument that some people are predisposed because of their genetics to be better doesn't sit well with people in a democracy in which we're told everyone is equal and has rights.

There have been numerous proponents of positive eugenics, the selection of perceived better traits, selective breeding for humans, over the centuries since Ancient Greek civilisation.

Description here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

The sticking point in a biological sense, discounting the human rights and compassion arguments, is defining what are the best traits. The Nazis had a go and made eugenics a dirty word for society. You may not agree with the characteristics they chose. The majority are always going to be selected against and are always going to oppose the idea in their masses. Intelligence for instance. You'd think it would be good. Those of us who consider ourselves to be the elite would almost certainly prefer less of those undesirable types around, spoiling it for the rest of us. Yet the stupid have more children; they start earlier and churn them out at an elevated rate. Biologically stupidity appears more fit.

Intelligence is probably my best trait, it what allows me to be socially successful. Yet if conditions changed, if there was a nuclear war or people needed greater survival skills I'd be unsuitable for it. I have poor eye sight, I burn easily, I don't have a natural athleticism.

Conservation strategies in ecology always recommend retaining the largest possible population possible. The more individuals you have, the more variety, the more chance of having the necessary characteristics for success within the population to cope with any circumstances.

At some point (I'm told) there'll be an entirely novel strain of flu that comes out of Asia. We have no vaccine for it. Millions will die. But some will have a natural immunity and survive, they'll pass on that immunity to their offspring and the strain will no longer be a problem. Even in the greatest of catastrophies someone should survive.


We can't predict the future and so we can't select the genes we'll need for it.

One of the strongest arguments I've heard is that the vast working population we have and the welfare system in place to support the weak frees some individuals, who have their flaws, and would otherwise struggle, to contribute to society as a whole, more than could be expected from an individual; such as creating the technology to overcome a disease or overcome climate change, or allow us to waste our time on an internet messageboard.

Eugenics is an appealling idea for the arrogant, but it can't be justified.